Suspect’s Manifesto Points to Planned Anthrax Use, but Also to a Lack of Expertise

Tuesday

Jul 26, 2011 at 12:01 AMJul 27, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Experts in biological weapons said the document — at least on the subject of germ attacks — evoked the air of an armchair theorist rather than someone poised to commit mass slaughter.

WILLIAM J. BROAD

The manifesto of the man charged in the Norway attacks spells out plans for using anthrax as part of his war to defend Europe against what he called the rising threat of Muslim domination.

But experts in biological weapons said the manifesto showed no evidence that Anders Behring Breivik had actually obtained the lethal germ or could wield it as a weapon.

They said the document — at least on the subject of germ attacks — evoked the air of an armchair theorist rather than someone poised to commit mass slaughter.

“He obviously doesn’t have any specialized knowledge,” Matthew S. Meselson, a Harvard biologist and expert on biological weapons, said in an interview. “He’s copied words from other places, and says himself that he doesn’t have the expertise.”

Weapons experts note that many extremists — including from Al Qaeda — have expressed interest over the years in using anthrax as an aerosol weapon that, if inhaled, could cause fever, vomiting, chills, coma and death.

Even so, experts say that obtaining a particularly deadly strain can be very difficult, and creating a potent weapon even harder.

The 1,500-page manifesto of Mr. Breivik is a kind of rambling encyclopedia on the acquisition and use of unconventional arms, including germ, chemical and nuclear weapons. Sections of it discuss how to obtain, cultivate and use anthrax and refer to it as “one of the most effective” weapons.

“The use of anthrax has an excellent ‘shock effect,’ and is likely to result in massive media coverage,” Mr. Breivik wrote. He speculated that a large-scale attack could kill “as many as 200,000 people,” but said that “our objective” is to execute “surgically precise attacks” on particular people and buildings.

In his writing, Mr. Breivik often used the conditional tense, saying, for instance, “It shouldn’t be too hard to either buy or obtain anthrax on the black market.” He spoke of mounting attacks only “if we already have the necessary amount of high grade anthrax.”

Despite the manifesto’s mostly theoretical nature, it contains a color photograph near the end that bespeaks at least a first step on the road to practical experience. A person — presumably Mr. Breivik — is seen covered in a protective suit equipped with a respirator, holding what appears to be a vial in one hand and, in the other, what seems to be a syringe with the person’s thumb pressing the plunger.

A Maltese cross — a symbol of the Knights Templar, a Crusader military order that Mr. Breivik apparently wanted to reconstitute — adorns the front of the silvery protective suit.

“He was probably no more capable than an Islamic terrorist group looking at anthrax,” said Edward G. Lake, a retired computer analyst in Racine, Wis., who has written extensively on anthrax since the American attacks in late 2001, which killed five people and sickened at least 17 others.

In his manifesto, Mr. Breivik took approving note of the American attacks, which used envelopes containing small amounts of anthrax-laced powder sent through the mail. He even offered suggested text for letters to be enclosed with the deadly spores: “We, the European military order and tribunal,” one sample letter read, “condemn you to death for your involvement in the listed crimes against the peoples of Europe.”

The manifesto uses the word “anthrax” more than 50 times, and “spores” about 20 times.

“Theoretically,” the manifesto says, “anthrax spores can be cultivated with minimal special equipment and less than a first-year collegiate microbiological education.”

But in practice, the document notes, the procedure “is difficult and dangerous.”